krus_aragon
Established Member
These puns are Puchini-t now. Surely you've reached the bottom of the Liszt?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
What is your controversial railway opinion/idea?
- Thread starter EM2
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Journeyman
Established Member
- Joined
- 16 Apr 2014
- Messages
- 6,295
That reminds me, my cat is hungry. Must put food for Debussy on my Chopin Liszt.
I'm sure that we can composer some more.
krus_aragon
Established Member
What, go back to discussing railways? Now that would be controversial..Guys can we go back on topic, and refrain from being so lyrical
We got side tracked towards music, I said stop being so lyrical. Maybe the joke went over your head, maybe it didn't. Who knows?
krus_aragon
Established Member
Nah, I just decided to be controversial and go back on topic:
The modern additions Arriva made to Chester station are fairly good-looking.
Me, I'd be delighted, as long as it was clean. Your things in brackets I wouldn't even notice, nor see any reason to object if I did notice them, but a comfortable seat I certainly would appreciate.
I'd be even more delighted if they gave me a 40 year old Peugeot 304, which not only has even more comfortable seats but also has the most astoundingly bump-free comfortable ride quality far superior to any other car I've ever been in. It probably doesn't have even more things in brackets, but I wouldn't know.
What would cause me to react adversely would be if they gave me something with seats like school chairs and tried to persuade me that it was nevertheless an improvement because of all the things in brackets it had. I would be similarly dischuffed if they used that argument to excuse seeing only slabs of plastic instead of the view out of the window.
I am below average height, and below average weight for my height. The most widespread complaint I have about train seats is that in order to fit in them I would need both my shorter-than-average legs amputated above the knee. Either my knees are rammed against the back of the seat in front (for seats facing the same way) or I have to cramp up to avoid my legs getting tangled with those of the person opposite. This is never going to be comfortable no matter how many things in brackets the carriage has.
xotGD
Established Member
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2017
- Messages
- 6,886
Another one: Just because someone has built a couple of shabby little industrial units on the track bed does not mean that a former route could not possibly be reopened ever.
Agreed. And on similar lines: the current use of a former track bed as a cycle path does not count against the reopening of the route; on the contrary, the cycle path is a temporary placeholder to reserve the ground against more obstructive developments and keep it clear for potential railway reopening.
So long as it can be prized out of the cyclists hands !
K.o.R
Member
- Joined
- 6 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 673
I mean, I think I know where my money would go if it was a cyclist vs a train...
Only with the rails in situ though !
GrimShady
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2016
- Messages
- 1,740
All Intercity trains should be painted in Intercity Livery regardless of the operator.
Put a ticket scanner on the door.
That there will be problems if the railway were nationalised, leading to people calling for it to be privatised (quite possibly the very same who want it to be nationalised now).
That after it is then privatised again there will be problems with the railways. Leading to people to call for it to be nationalised.
Repeat
That after it is then privatised again there will be problems with the railways. Leading to people to call for it to be nationalised.
Repeat
tbtc
Veteran Member
In hindsight, we should have started converting all seventy five D78 sets into 230s a few years ago - we'd now have fully-accessible fast-accelerating trains capable of working significant numbers of "Provincial" services (not all, but enough - e.g. you could use dozens on the Valley Lines network - how much 75mph running is there there?).
Instead, we had a chip on our shoulder about "London cast-offs" and are facing a struggle to get enough units upgraded to meet the 1 January 2020 standards.
Instead, we had a chip on our shoulder about "London cast-offs" and are facing a struggle to get enough units upgraded to meet the 1 January 2020 standards.
"Ne vous derangez pas, monsieur. Push the ticket under the door."
At least a timer would be predictable, unlike the existing system of doors that just come open unexpectedly at random times.
krus_aragon
Established Member
In related news, a recent survey showed 5 out of 6 people enjoyed playing Russian Roulette...Excellent.
A game of ‘Squits Roulette’ anyone?
It would have been a better idea if, instead of selling land, BR had had a policy of retaining land but leasing it for non-residential use (light industry, storage, car parking etc). Land could be rented out on the strict proviso that it could be returned to railway use on givinf reasonable notice
Sad Sprinter
Established Member
The Railways would have been better if we had left them alone and not privatised them.
We buy far too much stock from abroad, we need to rebuild the British train building industry.
We buy far too much stock from abroad, we need to rebuild the British train building industry.
similarly a viaduct built to carry a railway was built to carry a railway, not to be a home to spiders.
Hetlana
Member
- Joined
- 19 Dec 2014
- Messages
- 50
That we should have genuine airline style competition on our intercity routes by scrapping the franchise system and replace it with a purely open access one.
Here’s what I would also do - sell off the intercity routes to private companies (called railway owning companies) who would not be allowed to run any trains themselves but would make money by charging ‘rents’ to train companies and would pay to maintain the track.
They would be forced/encouraged to have multiple train companies compete on their route.
Local lines would be owned by the local authority/ devolved administration and they would have complete discretion over what to do with them.
Here’s what I would also do - sell off the intercity routes to private companies (called railway owning companies) who would not be allowed to run any trains themselves but would make money by charging ‘rents’ to train companies and would pay to maintain the track.
They would be forced/encouraged to have multiple train companies compete on their route.
Local lines would be owned by the local authority/ devolved administration and they would have complete discretion over what to do with them.
The railways would have been better if if we had never nationalised them in the first place...
tbtc
Veteran Member
"useful" is a fairly meaningless word, in the context of "if they'd kept the line from x to y open, it'd have been useful".
It seems to be a useful word on the Forum, able to be deployed to justify benefits that are otherwise unquantifiable - ignoring the fact that lots of things are "useful" but these things would cost money and we can spend that money on other things.
It'd be "useful" if I had a pair of shoes for that activity that I only do every couple of years (insert sport here). It'd be "useful" if I had a spare room to accommodate those relatives who are only in the UK a couple of times a decade. It'd be "useful" if I had kept various things that ended up being donated to a charity shop. But there's Opportunity Cost, there's better use of resources and these things don't happen often enough to warrant having such "luxuries" the rest of the time. Just like it isn't worth keeping your favourite abandoned line open for the sake of a couple of weekends a year when it'd have been "useful" to have a diversionary alternative.
It seems to be a useful word on the Forum, able to be deployed to justify benefits that are otherwise unquantifiable - ignoring the fact that lots of things are "useful" but these things would cost money and we can spend that money on other things.
It'd be "useful" if I had a pair of shoes for that activity that I only do every couple of years (insert sport here). It'd be "useful" if I had a spare room to accommodate those relatives who are only in the UK a couple of times a decade. It'd be "useful" if I had kept various things that ended up being donated to a charity shop. But there's Opportunity Cost, there's better use of resources and these things don't happen often enough to warrant having such "luxuries" the rest of the time. Just like it isn't worth keeping your favourite abandoned line open for the sake of a couple of weekends a year when it'd have been "useful" to have a diversionary alternative.
krus_aragon
Established Member
On the contrary, my house came with the spare room that my friend stays in twice a year, and it is far more cost effective to maintain that room under a reduced maintenance (hoovering) regime, rather than closing (demolishing) it and damaging the overall structure of my house, and potentially having to go through the much greater expense of rebuilding it, should my friend move jobs and have to lodge here.
- Status